remanded EB-3 Case: General Contracting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF R-S-B- INC. 
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE 14, 2019 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a general contractor, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a cost estimator. It requests 
classification of the Beneficiary as a professional under the third preference immigrant classification. 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), section 203(b)(3)(A)(ii), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(b)(3)(A)(ii). 
This employment-based immigrant classification allows a U.S. employer to sponsor a professional 
with a baccalaureate degree for lawful permanent resident status. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary possessed the experience required for the offered job as of 
the priority date. The Director noted inconsistencies between the Beneficiary's experience listed on 
the labor certification and her prior representations on a nonimmigrant visa application. 1 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that the Director failed to consider 
the independent, objective evidence of the Beneficiary's prior employment that it submitted in 
response to the Director's notice of intent to deny (NOID). The Petitioner states that the Beneficiary 
has the required qualifications for the offered job. 
Upon de novo review, we will remand the matter to the Director for further consideration and entry of 
a new decision. 
I. THE EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRATION PROCESS 
Employment-based immigration generally follows a three-step process. First, an employer obtains an 
approved labor certification from the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). 2 See section 212(a)(5)(A)(i) 
of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § l 182(a)(5)(A)(i). By approving the labor certification, the DOL certifies that there 
are insufficient U.S. workers who are able, willing, qualified, and available for the offered position and 
that employing a foreign national in the position will not adversely affect the wages and working 
1 The Director's decision does not make a finding of fraud or willful misrepresentation of a material fact against the 
Petitioner or the Beneficiary. Further, the Director's decision does not find that the Petitioner failed to establish its ability 
to pay the proffered wage. If such findings were intended, the Director should clarify these issues on remand. 
2 The priority date of a petition is the date the DOL accepted the labor ce1tification for processing, which in this case is 
May 23, 2017. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(d). 
Matter of R-S-B- Inc. 
conditions of domestic workers similarly employed. See section 212(a)(5)(A)(i)(n-(II) of the 
Act. Second, the employer files an immigrant visa petition with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS). See section 204 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1154. Third, ifUSCIS approves the petition, 
the foreign national applies for an immigrant visa abroad or, if eligible, adjustment of status in the 
United States. See section 245 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1255. 
II. THE BENEFICIARY'S EXPERIENCE 
The Director determined that the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary possessed the 
experience required for the offered job as of the priority date. A beneficiary must meet all of the 
requirements of the offered position set forth on the labor certification by the priority date of the 
petition. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Wing's Tea House, 16 I&N Dec. 158, 159 (Acting 
Reg'l Comm'r 1977). 
The labor certification requires a bachelor's degree in business administration or accounting; and 24 
months of experience in the job offered or as an administrative manager or budget accountant. No 
alternate combination of education and experience is acceptable. On the labor certification, the 
Beneficiar] indicated that she worked full-time as an administrative manager forl I 
inl~--~Venezuela, from July 1, 2009, to July 29, 2011. 
Evidence relating to qualifying experience must be in the form of a letter from a current or former 
employer and must include the name, address, and title of the writer, and a specific description of the 
duties performed by the beneficiary. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(3). With the etition, the Petitioner 
submitted a letter dated April 3, 2017, from the general mana er of It states 
that the Beneficiary worked as an administrative manager for.__ _______ _.from July 1, 2009, 
to July 29, 2011, and lists her duties. 
In the NOID, the Director indicated that the Beneficiary had filed a nonimmigrant visa petition in 2014 
on which the Beneficiary claimed to be a housewife without any prior employment experience. The 
Director stated that the Petitioner must resolve the inconsistencies between the representations on the 
labor certification and the nonimmigrant visa application with independent, objective evidence 
pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 3 
In response to the NOID, the Petitioner provided several documents relating to the Beneficiary's work 
experience wit~ I including: 
3 In his decision, the Director asserted that the Petitioner improperly omitted the Beneficiary's employment with it on the 
labor certification. The Petitioner asse11s on appeal that it began employing the Beneficiary after the labor ce11ification 
was filed on May 23, 2017. However, it checked yes at Paii J.23. of the labor ce1iification application, affirming that the 
Beneficiary was currently employed by the Petitioner at the time the labor certification was filed. The Beneficiary also 
indicated on her Form T-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, that she began working for 
the Petitioner on May 1, 2017, before the labor certification was filed. Thus, the Beneficiary's start date with the Petitioner 
is not clear from the record. The inconsistencies must be resolved on remand. Matter of Ho, 19 T&N Dec. at 591-92. 
2 
Matter of R-S-B- Inc. 
• Proof of Worker's Earnings, pursuant to which the legal representative o~.__ _______ _. 
certified that the Beneficiary was employed there from July 1, 2009, to July 29, 2011, and 
earned 324.92 Bs. per week. 
• Form 14-100, Proof of Employment with IVSS, which indicates the monthly salaries earned 
by the Beneficiary as an administrator wit~ lfrom July 1, 2009, to July 
29, 2011;4 
• Form 14-03, Worker's Retirement Participation, which indicates that.__ _______ _. 
employed the Beneficiary as an administrative manager from July 1, 2009, to July 29, 2011, at 
a monthly salary of 324.92. 5 
• Single Recqrd of Fiscal Information (RIF), which confirms the registration ofl 
I linl lvenezuela in 1996. ,...__ __ __. 
In his decision, although the Director listed the documents submitted by the Petitioner in response to 
the NOID, he did not analyze them or indicate why they failed to resolve the inconsistencies in the 
Beneficiary's work experience. Thus, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter 
to the Director for entry of a new decision addressing the Beneficiary's qualifications for the offered 
job. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Director's decision did not evaluate the evidence of the Beneficiary's employment in Venezuela 
submitted in response to the NOID, we will remand the matter to the Director for farther consideration 
of the Beneficiary's qualifications for the offered job. The Director may request any additional 
evidence considered pertinent. Similarly, the Petitioner may provide additional evidence within a 
reasonable period of time to be determined by the Director. Upon receipt of all the evidence, the 
Director will review the entire record and enter a new decision. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a 
new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
Cite as Matter of R-S-B-, Inc., ID# 3998340 (AAO June 14, 2019) 
4 The salaries shown are between 1,224 and 1,408 per month. 
5 We note that the Proof of Worker's Earnings indicates that she earned 324.92 Bs. per week. The Petitioner must resolve 
this inconsistency on remand. 
3